Read the blog regarding why Huckabee is this guys "fifth choice out of five." Sorry to say: this was a lame piece.
The real problem is that he's too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral).
So tell me, what IS the difference between moralistic vs. moral? Would "moralistic" be anything couched in moral language that the author doesn't acknowledge as being moral because its different than his version of morality?
But if Huckabee actually did reach his position based on the views of a handful of generals, and without consulting the people actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists
So ... according to this guy, generals aren't actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists. If that's the case, are soldiers allowed to ignore their orders ...?
Waterboarding and long-term detention aren't very "Christian"; they merely keep terrorists out of action and, in special circumstances enable us to find out where we're going to be attacked next and/or where we can find those who are planning the next attacks.
Ah ... and now we attack the man's Christianity because his attempt to live out the faith doesn't line up with this author's personal need to justify his by-any-means-necessary view on how to fight a war on terror.
Give me a break! I'm not saying that I'm either for or against Huckabee. I'm just saying that this kind of sad-sack analysis is exactly why it is so hard to intelligently debate issues like this.
The real problem is that he's too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral).
So tell me, what IS the difference between moralistic vs. moral? Would "moralistic" be anything couched in moral language that the author doesn't acknowledge as being moral because its different than his version of morality?
But if Huckabee actually did reach his position based on the views of a handful of generals, and without consulting the people actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists
So ... according to this guy, generals aren't actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists. If that's the case, are soldiers allowed to ignore their orders ...?
Waterboarding and long-term detention aren't very "Christian"; they merely keep terrorists out of action and, in special circumstances enable us to find out where we're going to be attacked next and/or where we can find those who are planning the next attacks.
Ah ... and now we attack the man's Christianity because his attempt to live out the faith doesn't line up with this author's personal need to justify his by-any-means-necessary view on how to fight a war on terror.
Give me a break! I'm not saying that I'm either for or against Huckabee. I'm just saying that this kind of sad-sack analysis is exactly why it is so hard to intelligently debate issues like this.
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 6:07 PM
1 Comments:
See--I don't know exactly where I stand. I want my leaders to be principled, but I don't know if they need to be Christian to be good leaders. So Hucks' religion, to me, is ultimately a non issue.
Secondly, I'm not sure where the Christian ethic fits in with the war on terror anyway. The (God directed) OT wars were pretty brutal. God didn't seem to care all too much about the enemy. I'm not sure if NT theology somehow changes that. If there's a clear and imminent threat, does our (or should our) Christian ethic inhibit us from protecting hundreds of millions of people?
Finally--Huck's not conservative. He's a tax and spend republican. Big difference. And to me, that's worthy of discussion.
What made this country great was the freedom to be self-sufficient. And the farther we get from that value, the greater we travel towards our implosion.
Post a Comment
<< Home